After asking what citizens thought about using Internet disconnections as an …

Share this story

Internet disconnection—it's back on the table in the UK as one of the solutions to the "piracy problem."

The government's announcement today (PDF) that it now supports the use of Internet disconnection for its new "graduated response" scheme puts it firmly on the French side of the debate about how to handle illicit file-swapping online. That's an odd place for the UK to be, for several reasons—most notably, because the government explicitly said that Internet disconnections would not be coming and were not wanted. Now, at the end of August, surprise!

The government's major Digital Britain report, released in June 2009, agreed. It suggested that those found to be sharing files illegally receive a warning. If warnings were not enough to stem piracy by 70 percent (however one would measure such a slippery number), then regulators could force ISPs to adopt "technical measures" such as throttling Internet connections. But disconnections, well, they just weren't cricket.

After the report came an official government consultation that focused on implementing the recommendations into law. All sorts of stakeholders responded, weighing in on all sides of the issue. That consultation, set to wrap up in mid-September, has now been undermined. Rather than wait for the process to work itself out, the UK government went ahead and today published a statement changing the consultation's ground rules.

"Our thinking on the process supporting the objectives and the obligations has developed, and we thought it would be helpful to share these thoughts with stakeholders at this point, so that they can take them into account when responding to the consultation," wrote the government.

This evolution in government thinking isn't particularly hard to describe: disconnection is now on the table, and it can be ordered without regard to the effectiveness of the other measures. Regulators would still have to measure the effect that warnings and throttling had on piracy, but "this advice would not be binding on the Secretary of State and he would be able to take into account other, wider factors and other sources of information before taking any decision on the introduction of technical measures."

The government worried that the original plan would simply take too long to save the creative industries from a problem that requires "urgent action." Second, because the government recognizes that actually measuring P2P use is hard, it doesn't want to tie Internet disconnections to such evidence; the Secretary of State can basically implement them whenever he is lobbied hard enough wants to do so.

The government does try to make clear that disconnection should be employed only with caution, noting that "this step would obviously be a very serious sanction as it would affect all members of a household equally, and might disrupt access to other communications, so it should be regarded as very much a last resort."

But the fact that it's there at all is troubling in light of the government's earlier repudiation of the idea and the ongoing consultation. In today's document, the government admits that its change of heart on the matter was driven by "some stakeholders" who "have argued strongly that none of those technical measures is powerful enough to have a significant deterrent effect on infringing behaviour."

Who's killing copyright?

Jim Killock, who heads the Open Rights Group in the UK, is less than pleased about the change. "This is the wrong moment to go in this direction," he wrote. "The result of these proposals is likely to be protest, challenges and public arguments in the run-up to the General election. Popular movements in France, Sweden and elsewhere have kick-started over similar measures. That will do nobody any good, neither politicians nor rights-holding industries, as copyright’s reputation suffers further damage."

On the official Digital Britain discussion forum, readers are already venting their anger. "When I read the DB report I was satisfied that the government was taking a balanced sensible approach and fulfilling their responsibilities to as many parties as best they could," wrote one. "This backtracking is disgusting and I’ve thoroughly lost all faith that DB know what they’re doing. I previously put off supporting The Pirate Party as I felt it was unnecessary, however as of now I am a fully registered member."

The post makes Killock's point nicely, and it's one we've made for years here at Ars: those doing the most long-term damage to copyright are the companies pushing hardest for term extensions, higher statutory damage awards, and draconian penalties such as the Internet disconnection of entire families.

Perhaps the most depressing thing about the entire situation is that the problem of piracy in the UK is already correcting itself as better (legal) streaming and download services arrive.

45 Reader Comments

The problem with the 'legal' streaming and download services is mainly that they always end up being region locked, which really defies the basic concept of the internet. It's incredibly frustrating to be actively prevented from legally obtaining stuff you want over the internet simply because of where you live. Less of a problem in the UK compared to, say, Australia, but the UK still lags a fair way behind the US.

After reading the comment of an 'Official Digital Britain forum poster' in a news article, I really feel like I've really got my finger on the pulse of the nation. There's a reason that the Onion parodies the 'Go interview some random git on the street' format of news reporting so much -- it's shit.

Originally posted by D_Homerick:After reading the comment of an 'Official Digital Britain forum poster' in a news article, I really feel like I've really got my finger on the pulse of the nation. There's a reason that the Onion parodies the 'Go interview some random git on the street' format of news reporting so much -- it's shit.

Tell us how you really feel!

Oh wait. You did, but government doesn't give a shit! Welcome to the US and Britania!

Back in the day (like, the 90s) people were speculating that as the Net became more laden with corporate/gov't interests increasing numbers of people would employ end-to-end encryption, VPNs and anonymizing proxies to avoid control by content and geography.

The first two are already standard for business worried about stolen laptops and run-of-the-mill corporate espionage; actions like this by the UK will only broaden the appeal of these techniques.

I don't think anyone is truly worried about this. The labour party is a lame duck at the moment and they are talking about giving extra powers to OFCOM for this to happen. They need to pass a new law for it to happen.

They are basically trying to get something on the front pages of the heavyweight newspapers that isn't "Labour Prime Minister vacillates over release of mass murderer" - which was the other event that happened yesterday.

I've said it once, I've said it twice, I've said it a million times...and I'm going to say it again. The U.S., along with most Western governments, have been totally co-opted, corrupted, and are now fully controlled and under the collective iron fist of international corporations, their owners, and their funded thinktanks, lobby groups, and special interests.

It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, or how big of a majority of the citizens do or don't want something, the corporate governments of our world will do whatever the fuck they want. And you aren't going to do shit about it, slave.

Who punishes the corporations when they break they laws, oh it seems no one. they own all the governments, you, me , and everything.

This is what we want apparently, lest we would do something about it.

If only the citizenry could pay those in government to do what the citizens want.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."--John Adams

No, as much as I used to thing people like giggity were full of shit, the more I hear of corporate things like this the more I lose respect for government.

Lost. It's all gone.

The toadies in the offices around the world think they're doing themselves a favor at the cost of nobody. People in my generation are growing up fully trusting the government to act against our best interests. If the government is this much bent over by Big Content, imagine how much power all the other groups wield! How can we ever get any progress in a world ruled by corporations!

Come on politicians, the people at the polls aren't JUST employees of *incoming election fund donor #45*, they're PEOPLE. Government once was Of the people, For the people, and By the people. Now it's none of the above. Our governments do not serve us.

Its even worse than that. They arent going to give Ofcom greater powers, they are going to give them to Lord Mandelson (or Mandy if you will), who isnt even an MP (he isnt elected). Ofcom isnt getting anymore power because its already a toothless lion.

Oh, this article failed to mention that Lord Mandy, the guy who pushed for this change, stayed with a certain Mr Keffen for a week or so at his home on a Greek Island. Keffen is a Hollywood mogul I think, and worth billions. And then suddenly Mandy takes pity on the poor record execs who are struggling to feed their families and buy that extra private island. My heart goes out to them.

The problem with disconnection is that its a disproportionate response to piracy. I mean, I live with 4 other guys in my digs. If one of them commits piracy, we all get cut off. Is that fair? The other problem is that this essentially forces the ISPs to act as police for the record industry. Why should they get so lucky? Can the government pass a law forcing another private company to act as policeman on my behalf free of charge? Lastly I dont believe that either the record industry or the ISP should have the authority to issue a disconnection without significant court oversight, which is I think exactly what the record industry dont want. How many times have the RIAA in the USA sent threatening letters to printers and routers who "downloaded" torrents? They can and do make mistakes, but they wont pick up the bill when they do.

You thought third world African countries were corrupt? Welcome to the UK.

Lord Mandelson's plans to cut off the broadband connections of internet users who illegally download copyrighted music and films were attacked by privacy campaigners, internet service providers and Labour MPs yesterday as unworkable, unnecessary and potentially illegal.

I think it's good that they're doing something to stop rampant piracy. Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with what corporations do and believe they should be held responsible for their actions. However, people violating copyright should also be dealt with and the reasons why are as follows:

1) If you want to watch a film, you pay for it. Fairly simple logic to me. If I want to eat pizza, I have to buy it. Why do I have to pay for my pizza when others can get what they want for free? Where's the justice?

2) If movie studios go bankrupt, you won't have a new film to download in a few years. They will have to reassess their business model and stop making movies when they become unprofitable.

3) We don't want DRM to hurt everyone. It's better to deal with people who steal content directly.

Originally posted by OutOfTimer:1) If you want to watch a film, you pay for it. Fairly simple logic to me. If I want to eat pizza, I have to buy it. Why do I have to pay for my pizza when others can get what they want for free? Where's the justice?

The difference between a pizza and a film is that pizzas are scarce. When you eat a pizza, you deprive another person of the opportunity to eat this pizza. That's why a pizza is more valuable than an electronic copy of a film.

quote:

2) If movie studios go bankrupt, you won't have a new film to download in a few years.

That's a big "if". For many people, value-added services, such as movie theaters, are quite valuable. Many people will pay for convenience of legitimate movie stores even when piracy is an alternative. Movie studios will not go bankrupt if they adopt realistic business strategies.

quote:

3) We don't want DRM to hurt everyone. It's better to deal with people who steal content directly.

Just because you don't want DRM to hurt everyone, it doesn't mean that the Big Content will stop using it.

Originally posted by OutOfTimer:However, people violating copyright should also be dealt with

In terms of violating distribution rights (which is what p2p is all about), why should they be punished? Considering how horribly outdated copyright is in this modern world, with the technology we have, why should the common man be punished by the corporations for exercising a right that he has decided not to surrender to copyright?

quote:

1) If you want to watch a film, you pay for it. Fairly simple logic to me. If I want to eat pizza, I have to buy it. Why do I have to pay for my pizza when others can get what they want for free? Where's the justice?

Just about any analogy that compares filesharing to physical theft (or that compares a digital file to a physical object) is fundamentally flawed. Your analogy would only stand if we had magical pizza-copying machines. If this were the case, would the food industry whine about lost sales due to food piracy? Probably, and they would make a lot of people angry, but I digress. The point: Don't compare the digital to the physical.

quote:

2) If movie studios go bankrupt, you won't have a new film to download in a few years. They will have to reassess their business model and stop making movies when they become unprofitable.

Considering that the studios are doing better than ever, when are they going to go bankrupt from filesharing, an activity that hasn't even been proven to significantly damage any industry?

quote:

3) We don't want DRM to hurt everyone. It's better to deal with people who steal content directly.

One, filesharing is not theft. Two, DRM, by its very nature, hurts only the people it is not designed to combat: the customer who buys the legal copy. People who want to share the content will find a way around it, leaving only the 'honest' costumer to be hurt by the DRM.

True, Region locking is a huge issue:I couldnt buy artist lessons from itunes because i am in Sweden.

Solution: bit torrent, gave me *every* artist lesson from every artist in one package, even though all i wanted was one lesson from one artist that i was willing to pay for.

Corruption in the govt gave Sweden IPRED:

solution: i joined the pirate party, got a few pals of mine to vote for them as well, the Swedish pirate party is the first to be in the EU parliament, and not going to be the last either. They got 7.1% of the vote in Sweden... once the Lisbon treaty comes into effect, thats going to be two seats for PP in the EU parliament instead of one.I'll also be voting for PP in national elections.

Harsher punishments against college kids, single moms, the dying, elderly, pre teens.... printers and dead people:

solution: I have not paid for a single song (unless it was from a site listed on RIAA watch/indie bands) in years, but i have thousands of songs. and more everyday.I see every new movie but have not bought a new DVD in years.

Created a website to educate "normal users" about copyright and piracy.

I instead have invested in a good VPN service which nulls anti-piracy methods as well as the IPRED (industry bought) laws.

p2p != piracy. wtf? Are they doing some sort of DPI on all p2p traffic to sort the pirated content from the non-pirated content? I take a fairly moderate approach to copyright (i.e. I believe that such a thing exists and that those who distribute copyrighted works are breaking the law), but these ham-fisted ways of approaching the problem just pushes me in the other direction. Will governments ever get a clue?

Who said anything about us wanting to pirate with abandon? I think its fair for artists to profit from their work, and as such I agree that piracy should be illegal, but I dont think this is the solution. This is just the result of corruption.

It hasnt even been proven that piracy is the record industry's greatest woe, personally I think its their outdated business model that relies on market manipulation and excessively high prices.

Originally posted by OutOfTimer:1) If you want to watch a film, you pay for it. Fairly simple logic to me. If I want to eat pizza, I have to buy it. Why do I have to pay for my pizza when others can get what they want for free? Where's the justice?

The difference between a pizza and a film is that pizzas are scarce. When you eat a pizza, you deprive another person of the opportunity to eat this pizza. That's why a pizza is more valuable than an electronic copy of a film.

I don't think you're right here. Why do you consume pizza? Because it fulfils a need you have, and that gives it value. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it". A movie is the same. You watch it because you want to be entertained, and that has a non-zero value to you. If that value were really zero, you'd do something else. That it has value to you is determined by the content, not the delivery mechanism. People make films because they know other people will pay to watch them. If people won't pay films won't get made. If you want to keep watching good films, then you've got to pay for it, or else you're a freeloader.

All this about how the value of something should be related to its cost to produce is nonsense. Always has been and always will. The only way they are related is by the question of whether someone else can legally make the same thing (or equivalent) for less.

Anyone who says that there is nothing wrong with pirating films/music etc is simply in denial, and their "justifications" are just attempts to convince themselves that they bear no guilt.

IMHO the worst thing though about piracy (be it via p2p or whatever) is that it gives them an excuse to lobby for crap legislation like this, not realising that if people can't get content for a price they're willing to pay for it they won't get it at all. Probably 99% of piracy won't be turned into purchases, it will simply result in people finding something else to do, and as a side effect of that people will listen to and purchase less music.

Originally posted by Hypnos7:Back in the day (like, the 90s) people were speculating that as the Net became more laden with corporate/gov't interests increasing numbers of people would employ end-to-end encryption, VPNs and anonymizing proxies to avoid control by content and geography.

The first two are already standard for business worried about stolen laptops and run-of-the-mill corporate espionage; actions like this by the UK will only broaden the appeal of these techniques.

You do realize that the "net" was invented as a secure means for the American Military to talk electronically to each other? And only over time was access expanded to outside institutions such as Universities and later on corporations, and finally in the late 80's early 90's ISP's started up and people who knew about it could get access.

Originally posted by AxMi-24:Yea, no. Sadly EU [sic] is as tame as the rest when it comes to lobbing [sic] from the media companies. EU [sic] is probably closer to a police state than any other country and it's getting worse with each passing day.

Originally posted by OutOfTimer:1) If you want to watch a film, you pay for it. Fairly simple logic to me. If I want to eat pizza, I have to buy it. Why do I have to pay for my pizza when others can get what they want for free? Where's the justice?

Originally posted by Sneaky:A movie is the same. You watch it because you want to be entertained, and that has a non-zero value to you.

It doesn't necessarily result in a non-zero price. Nothing is as valuable to me as the air I breathe, but I'm not paying for it. Water is equally valuable to me, but the price I'm paying is very low. Value has never been the only factor that affects price.

quote:

People make films because they know other people will pay to watch them. If people won't pay films won't get made. If you want to keep watching good films, then you've got to pay for it, or else you're a freeloader.

That's a good point. But it simply means that the industry should adopt more realistic business models.

quote:

All this about how the value of something should be related to its cost to produce is nonsense. Always has been and always will. The only way they are related is by the question of whether someone else can legally make the same thing (or equivalent) for less.

The word "legally" doesn't belong in this sentence. A black market is still a market. Non-commercial filesharing is a very efficient method of distribution, and the music industry's business models should reflect this fact.

quote:

Anyone who says that there is nothing wrong with pirating films/music etc is simply in denial, and their "justifications" are just attempts to convince themselves that they bear no guilt.

In my opinion, piracy is a necessary evil that makes the market more competitive.

quote:

IMHO the worst thing though about piracy (be it via p2p or whatever) is that it gives them an excuse to lobby for crap legislation like this, not realising that if people can't get content for a price they're willing to pay for it they won't get it at all. Probably 99% of piracy won't be turned into purchases, it will simply result in people finding something else to do, and as a side effect of that people will listen to and purchase less music.

The problem is that, without piracy, people still wouldn't "get content for a price they're willing to pay for it" because Big Content doesn't really care about people. From their perspective, it doesn't really matter if people listen to and purchase less music. They only care about their profits.

I fail to see how P2P filesharing in violation of intellectual property rights is justifiable. They appear to stem from: 1) I want to use something for free. 2) I don't like Data Rights Management so to show them I'm going to use it for free. 3) These laws won't let me legally use it for free so I'm going to show them by using it illegally for free. 4) The man is bringing us down so we should stick it to him by using it for free.

I can only vaguely see how blocking internet service to people in the UK who use repeatedly use P2P filesharing in violation of IP. It's analagous to repeat drunk drivers having their licenses taken away - Driving is a priveledge in the U.S. and if you break the law multiple times using such priveledge it should be taken away.

That being said - Are they proving that the P2P users having their internet shut down are using it in violation of IP laws? Is internet use a privelege or a right in the UK?

Originally posted by AxMi-24:Yea, no. Sadly EU [sic] is as tame as the rest when it comes to lobbing [sic] from the media companies. EU [sic] is probably closer to a police state than any other country and it's getting worse with each passing day.

You do know the EU isn't a country, right?

Living in it kinda makes that I do. Sadly the laws that attack the privacy and extend copyright to infinity are enacted by the EU making it in effect a single country with respect to those questions.

It's a great arrangement. Politicians can blame the EU for the unpopular laws (happened with IPRED and data retention directive in Sweden despite the Swedish government being the one that pushed hard for both). Best of all sheeple buy that crap -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif --

Originally posted by JabberWockey:I can only vaguely see how blocking internet service to people in the UK who use repeatedly use P2P filesharing in violation of IP. It's analagous to repeat drunk drivers having their licenses taken away - Driving is a priveledge in the U.S. and if you break the law multiple times using such priveledge it should be taken away.

Actually, I think your analogy is flawed in that it would be more comparable to say that it would be like a repeat drunk driver having their car taken away, such that all other family members (or co-workers should it be a company vehicle) cannot use the resource either.

The issue is not just the disconnection of the offending individual, it's the disconnection of all people living in the same household as the offending individual. So this now becomes a two-fold guilty until proven innocent (or rather, guilty until copyright holders decide to acquiesce): first of all, there haven't been adequate details for court oversight on innocent people not getting disconnected that have been publicly aired, and second of all, one guilty person can now inflict punishment on all innocent people living in the home. That's a two-fer there if you happen to have a family that gets one member falsely accused and disconnected.

So, are we going to move to a system where each person who has access to the Internet has to have a personalized login code that allows only their connection be severed should they "break the law"? So this way, should my fiance decide to download copyrighted content for free illegally, he can get disconnected from the Internet only and I'm still safe? Because that seems like the only way that this could even remotely work. But I'm sure THAT wouldn't cause any nightmares for the ISPs or the copyright holders that are doing the discoveries, or anyone else anywhere ever.

Originally posted by JabberWockey:I can only vaguely see how blocking internet service to people in the UK who use repeatedly use P2P filesharing in violation of IP. It's analagous to repeat drunk drivers having their licenses taken away - Driving is a priveledge in the U.S. and if you break the law multiple times using such priveledge it should be taken away.

Actually, I think your analogy is flawed in that it would be more comparable to say that it would be like a repeat drunk driver having their car taken away, such that all other family members (or co-workers should it be a company vehicle) cannot use the resource either.

The issue is not just the disconnection of the offending individual, it's the disconnection of all people living in the same household as the offending individual. So this now becomes a two-fold guilty until proven innocent (or rather, guilty until copyright holders decide to acquiesce): first of all, there haven't been adequate details for court oversight on innocent people not getting disconnected that have been publicly aired, and second of all, one guilty person can now inflict punishment on all innocent people living in the home. That's a two-fer there if you happen to have a family that gets one member falsely accused and disconnected.

So, are we going to move to a system where each person who has access to the Internet has to have a personalized login code that allows only their connection be severed should they "break the law"? So this way, should my fiance decide to download copyrighted content for free illegally, he can get disconnected from the Internet only and I'm still safe? Because that seems like the only way that this could even remotely work. But I'm sure THAT wouldn't cause any nightmares for the ISPs or the copyright holders that are doing the discoveries, or anyone else anywhere ever.

Ostensibly you could simply have it so that the person on the bill is responsible for the use of the service.

Disconnection/suspension/termination would be attached to that particular person. Someone else at the location of the appropriate age could reactivate the service, but they would then be responsible for the use of the service.

Unless the UK has a "right to internet use" concept in their society, seems like it would work just fine.

Originally posted by AxMi-24:Yea, no. Sadly EU [sic] is as tame as the rest when it comes to lobbing [sic] from the media companies. EU [sic] is probably closer to a police state than any other country and it's getting worse with each passing day.

You do know the EU isn't a country, right?

Living in it kinda makes that I do. Sadly the laws that attack the privacy and extend copyright to infinity are enacted by the EU making it in effect a single country with respect to those questions.

It's a great arrangement. Politicians can blame the EU for the unpopular laws (happened with IPRED and data retention directive in Sweden despite the Swedish government being the one that pushed hard for both). Best of all sheeple buy that crap -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif --

It still doesn't quite work that way. Where I live (Poland, now part of the EU) it's completely legal to share music and films with friends as long as it's non-commercial, and physically done.

So you can't legally distribute films via utorrent, but you can give all your school-friends a burnt DVD. Doesn't apply to software, though.

Originally posted by AxMi-24:Yea, no. Sadly EU [sic] is as tame as the rest when it comes to lobbing [sic] from the media companies. EU [sic] is probably closer to a police state than any other country and it's getting worse with each passing day.

You do know the EU isn't a country, right?

Living in it kinda makes that I do. Sadly the laws that attack the privacy and extend copyright to infinity are enacted by the EU making it in effect a single country with respect to those questions.

It's a great arrangement. Politicians can blame the EU for the unpopular laws (happened with IPRED and data retention directive in Sweden despite the Swedish government being the one that pushed hard for both). Best of all sheeple buy that crap -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif --

It still doesn't quite work that way. Where I live (Poland, now part of the EU) it's completely legal to share music and films with friends as long as it's non-commercial, and physically done.

So you can't legally distribute films via utorrent, but you can give all your school-friends a burnt DVD. Doesn't apply to software, though.

Technically it's the same in Sweden and other countries too (where you pay the private copy fees). Sadly you get to pay for that use it or not. So it's mainly just an excuse to give even more money to the media industry.

Still doesn't solve the problem of insane copyright terms and non democratic laws.